This is a parody site. This is humor. You are meant to laugh. Parody, people, it's parody.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

That disgusting Susan Rice

Susan Rice, aka Bob Somerby's masturbation fantasy, is back in the news.

Seems our Ambassador to the UN felt the diplomatic thing to do was to spy:

"ICH"
- "NYT"
-
WASHINGTON — In May 2010, when the United Nations
Security Council was weighing sanctions against Iran
over its nuclear program, several members were
undecided about how they would vote. The American
ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice,
asked the National Security Agency for help “so that
she could develop a strategy,” a leaked agency
document shows.

The N.S.A. swiftly went to work, developing the
paperwork to obtain legal approval for spying on
diplomats from four Security Council members —
Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda — whose embassies
and missions were not already under surveillance.
The following month, 12 members of the 15-seat
Security Council voted to approve new sanctions,
with Lebanon abstaining and only Brazil and Turkey
voting against.

Later that summer, Ms. Rice thanked the agency,
saying its intelligence had helped her to know when
diplomats from the other permanent representatives —
China, England, France and Russia — “were telling
the truth ... revealed their real position on
sanctions ... gave us an upper hand in negotiations
... and provided information on various countries
‘red lines.’ ”

What a piece of trash.

The only thing worse than Susan Rice is people who defend her -- like Bob Stupid Somerby.

'She didn't lie!'

She lied on five different talk shows, liar Susan Rice.

Bob Stupid Somerby called Joe Wilson a liar and whored for his buddy Matt Cooper.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Massoud Barzani
does not want Nouri to have a third term, Barack Obama loves to lecture
but does he listen (apparently not when it comes to Falluja -- he
doesn't even listen to himself), this year Barack termed Iraq "a failed
state," the US has a failed VA, CBS News breaks the latest VA scandal of
another facility with alleged fake wait lists, a War Crimes
investigation is launched by the ICC, Chair of the US House Veterans
Affairs Committee Jeff Miller calls for the creation of "a bipartisan
commission on VA medical care access" and much more.

Major news breaks in the US today. Wyatt Andrews (CBS News -- link is text and video) reports the
latest on the never-ending VA scandals. Similar to the wait lists at
the Phoenix VA -- two sets, the real one and the cover one to make it
look like vets are getting timely treatment -- Chicago steps into the
spotlight. Whistle-blower Germaine Clarno has stepped forward.

Wyatt Andrews: Germaine Clarno is a VA social worker and employee
representative in Chicago. She alleges there are multiple waiting lists
for veterans kept here at the Hines VA Medical Center. Which divisions
of the hospital kept these secret waiting listsGermaine Clarno: Well employees are coming to me from all over the
hospital -- from outpatient, inpatient, surgery, radiology. Wyatt Andrews: Clarno says veterans were put on a secret waiting
lists when they called for an appointment but wouldn't formally get an
appointment booked in the computer until one came up within the VA's
goal of 14 day The purpose of the list, she says, was to hide how often
veterans were not being seen on time. Is it too strong to call this
fraud?Germaine Clarno: No.Wyatt Andrews: To what purpose Germaine Clarno: To make the numbers look better for their own recognition and for bonusesWyatt Andrews: The VA grants bonuses to executives and doctors
partly based on wait times. Whistle-blowers, including Dr. Sam Foote
who revealed the scandal in Phoenix where up to 40 veterans may have
died, believe that bonuses give an incentive to conceal delays in care.
Clarno says it's easier for bosses to claim short wait time and collect
the reward than it is to explain the targets cannot be met. And you
think, throughout the VA, people were faking these numbers to get
bonuses? Germaine Clarno: Yes.Wyatt Andrews: And never mind how long veterans truly waited for care?Germaine Clarno: Correct.

And this is when Eric Shinseki needs to go.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs needed to resign in the fall of 2009.

That's when many veterans attempting to attend college were suffering.

The VA lied.

They flat out lied in every damn way possible and, in a functioning
administration, Shinskei wouldn't have resigned, he would have been
fired.

'We care about veterans, support the blah, blah, we'll do a parade . . .'

Save all your b.s.

When you let veterans suffer, when some aren't able to provide their
children Christmas because of your screw up that you don't fix month
after damn month, stop pretending you give a damn.

Veterans were waiting for fall tuition checks. Many didn't get them.

For those who've forgotten, VA tried to blame colleges and universities.

They lied. The outright lied.

They knew it wasn't the colleges.

What's even worse, they knew months ahead of time the new program
wouldn't work for all veterans. And they didn't inform veterans and
they didn't inform Congress.

Erick Shinseki: A plan was written, very quickly put together,
uh, very short timelines, I'm looking at the certificates of eligibility
uh being processed on 1 May and enrollments 6 July, checks having to
flow through August. A very compressed timeframe. And in order to do
that, we essentially began as I arrived in January, uh, putting together
the plan -- reviewing the plan that was there and trying to validate
it. I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh, there were a number of people
telling me this was simply not executable. It wasn't going to happen.
Three August was going to be here before we could have everything in
place. Uh, to the credit of the folks in uh VA, I, uh, I consulted an
outside consultant, brought in an independent view, same kind of
assessment. 'Unless you do some big things here, this is not
possible.' To the credit of the folks, the good folks in VBA, they took
it on and they went at it hard. We hired 530 people to do this and had
to train them. We had a manual system that was computer assisted. Not
very helpful but that's what they inherited. And we realized in about
May that the 530 were probably a little short so we went and hired 230
more people. So in excess of 700 people were trained to use the tools
that were coming together even as certificates were being executed.

He came and was told of a serious problem and didn't alert Congress. He
hired an outsider to evaluate and was told the plan in place "was
simply not executable." He still didn't inform Congress. He tried
training additional employees but, if you remember, that wasn't the
problem. And maybe if he'd been honest with Congress about what was
looming, the issue could be addressed.

Instead, veterans had to take out loans. They had to work with
landlords on delaying rent. Even after lying to Congress -- and he lied
-- in October that this was going to be wrapped up quick, as late as
December, some veterans had to delay Christmas for their kids because
they still were waiting for the check that shouldn't have come months
ago.

Shinseki should have been fired.

There has been one scandal after another including the backlog which has
not been fixed, which is a shell game and VSOs are only now starting to
grasp this due to complaints from their members.

It's only going to get worse.

And Barack Obama doesn't have another term as president of the United
States. This is it. He's in the second year of his second term.

Through one scandal after another, he's allowed Shinseki to continue as VA Secretary.

How does Barack think that will look in the history books? His infamous paragraph that he's spoken of?

It's not going to look good at all. VA and DoD still aren't integrated
so that they can produce the one electronic record -- a record which
would be created for a service member and, when the service member
became a veteran, the record would follow the veteran into the VA. This
would help with claims, this would reduce paperwork, you name it.

While Shinseki's been VA Secretary for Barack's full first term and now
into his second, the Secretary of Defense was Robert Gates, then it was
Leon Panetta, then it was Chuck Hagel (who remains in the position
today). Shinseki wasted Gates' time with a plan for the electronic
record. He never implemented it. Then Shinseki wanted to start at
square one when Panetta came in. He'd probably still be delaying if he
hadn't pissed off Hagel by lying to Congress and insisting the delay was
Hagel's fault.

Hagel hit the roof (and had every reason to) and went to the White
House. That's the only reason there's been any movement (finally) on
this issue.

In
front of local media and a live Internet audience, American Legion
National Commander Daniel M. Dellinger today called for the resignations
of Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, Under
Secretary of Health Robert Petzel and Under Secretary of Benefits
Allison Hickey.

Dellinger
cited poor oversight and failed leadership as the reason for calling
for the resignations – something The American Legion hasn’t done
regarding a public official in more than 30 years.

“Gen.
Eric Shinseki has served his country well,” Dellinger said. “His
patriotism and sacrifice for this nation are above reproach. However,
his record as the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs tells a
different story. The existing leadership has exhibited a pattern of
bureaucratic incompetence and failed leadership that has been amplified
in recent weeks.”

Dellinger
pointed to allegations from multiple whistleblowers of a secret waiting
list at the Phoenix VA Health Care System that may have resulted in the
death of approximately 40 veterans, that VA previously had acknowledged
that 23 veterans throughout the health-care system have died as a
result of delayed care in recent years, and a the findings of an
investigation by VA’s Office of Medical Inspector that clerks at the VA
clinic in Fort Collins, Colo., were instructed last year how to falsify
appointment records so it appeared the small staff of doctors was seeing
patients within the agency's goal of 14 days, according to the
investigation.

“These
disturbing reports are part of what appear to be a pattern of scandals
that has infected the entire system,” said Dellinger, noting issues that
have come up in Pittsburgh, Atlanta and Augusta, Ga. “Those problems
need addressed at the highest level – starting with new leadership. The
existing leadership has exhibited a pattern of bureaucratic incompetence
and failed leadership that has been amplified in recent weeks.”

Dellinger
said that the failure to disclose safety information or to cover up
mistakes is unforgivable – as is fostering a culture of nondisclosure.
“VA leadership has demonstrated its incompetence through preventable
deaths of veterans, long wait times for medical care, a benefits claims
backlog numbering in excess of 596,000, and the awarding of bonuses to
senior executives who have overseen such operations,” he said. “Some
veterans have waited years to have their claims decided. That same
leadership has failed to provide answers to why these issues continue to
occur.”

Dellinger
said that while errors and lapses can occur in any system, “The
American Legion expects when such errors and lapses are discovered, that
they are dealt with swiftly and that the responsible parties are held
accountable. This has not happened at the Department of Veterans
Affairs. There needs to be a change, and that change needs to occur at
the top. “

When
asked by media what the Legion would do if the trio didn’t resign,
Dellinger said a draft of the request was being sent to the White House.
“This is a very serious situation,” he said. “The administration needs
to take steps now. It’s long overdue. Whenever you’re talking about a
patient’s life – a veteran’s life – in jeopardy, it’s always serious.”

Dellinger also wrote an op-ed piece calling for the resignations. Read it here.

It needs to happen.

The latest scandal?

If true, there's nothing that ties it to Eric Shinseki . . .

except lack of leadership.

One scandal after another indicates he's not leading and he's certainly not demanding accountability.

If the worst that can be said is that Shinseki may have encouraged
fudging of the numbers, the best that can be said is he's incompetent,
unable to properly review those employees under him and completely
unaware of what's taking place in the department he heads.

US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. His office issued the following:

For more information, contact: Curt Cashour, (202) 225-3527

May 13, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today,
Chairman Jeff Miller wrote President Obama to request that he establish
a bipartisan commission on VA medical care access. Afterwards, he
released the following statement:“Judging by the throngs of veterans, families and whistleblowers who
keep courageously stepping forward, VA’s delays in care problem is
growing in size and scope by the day. That’s why I am asking for
President Obama’s personal involvement in helping fix this crisis. For
nearly a year, we have been pleading with top Department of Veterans
Affairs leaders and the president to take immediate steps to stop the
growing pattern of preventable veteran deaths and hold accountable any
and all VA employees who have allowed patients to slip through the
cracks. In response, we’ve received disturbing silence from the White
House and one excuse after another from VA. Right now, President Obama
is faced with a stark choice: take immediate action to help us end the
culture of complacency that is engulfing the Veterans Health
Administration and compromising patient safety, or explain to the
American people and America’s veterans why we should tolerate the status
quo.” – Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ AffairsRelatedChairman Miller letter to President ObamaMay 13, 2014Chairman Miller letter to President ObamaMay 21, 2013

The scandal plagued VA is not a star on Barack's record and Shinseki's
excuses/failures/both are now apparently costing lives. It's past time
this issue was addressed.

In other news, Matt Maupin was captured April 9, 2004 in Iraq. In a briefs
roundup, March 30th, 2008, the Washington Post noted:

The
father of a soldier listed as missing-captured in Iraq since 2004 says
the military has informed him that his son's remains were found in Iraq.Keith
Maupin said that an Army general told him Sunday that DNA was used to
identify the remains of his son, Sgt. Keith Matthew Maupin, who went by
"Matt."Matt Maupin was a 20-year-old private first class when he was
captured April 9, 2004, after his fuel convoy was ambushed west of
Baghdad. Arabic television network al-Jazeera aired a videotape a week
later showing Maupin sitting on the floor surrounded by five masked men
holding automatic rifles.

Friday, Amanda Lee Myers (AP) reported that a trial date has been set in Iraq for next Tuesday for an Iraqi
whom Lt Col Alayne Conway states has "confessed to killing Maupin." An
unnamed Iraqi judge states the confession took place in 2009 and led to a
conviction and sentence of death; however, the conviction's set aside
or reversed as a result of some paperwork issue resulting in the need
for a new trial. Central Illinois' 31 News (link is video and text) reported Matt's father Keith Maupin "is traveling to the Pentagon on Monday to learn more about the confession." Jessica Jerreat (Daily Mail) adds this will involve Keith Maupin speaking "to the [Iraqi] judge through a translator." Monday, Karin Johnson (WLWT -- link is video and text) spoke
with Keith Maupin at the airport before he left for DC. I'm not going
up there for revenge. I'm going up there for accountability and just
justice, I guess."

Brad Evans (WLWT) speaks with Keith Maupin today and Maupin tells him, "Well I
think maybe it might be just a shade a little bit closer (for closure)
because what I always thought was that I got justice or I got resolve
having them bring Matt home. I really thought it
would all go away after that but it didn't, so this comes up and it will
I think when this guy is finally, whatever happens to him, I think it
will. [. . .] They got the guy that actually pulled the trigger. That’s important to me."

The lies that led to the Iraq War are important to many. In England,
the Iraq Inquiry was held and was long ago supposed to have published
its results. That has still not taken place. James Chapman (Daily Mail) reports:

Tony Blair was blamed yesterday for a delay in publishing an official report into the Iraq War.Norman
Baker, a Home Office minister, accused the former premier of trying to
block the release of secret communications between him and George W
Bush.He has told Sir John Chilcot, who is heading the inquiry, of his deep concern at the length of time it is taking.A
letter from the former Whitehall mandarin – seen by the Daily Mail –
shows that publication of notes sent by Mr Blair to former US president
Bush, and records of their conversations, is an issue.

Allegations that British troops were responsible for a series of war crimes following the invasion of Iraq are to be examined by the international criminal court (ICC) at the Hague, officials have announced.The
court is to conduct a preliminary examination of around 60 alleged
cases of unlawful killing and claims that more than 170 Iraqis were
mistreated while in British military custody.

Gavin Cordon (Scotsman) observes, "The inquiry will be the first time the UK has been the subject of an ICC investigation." BBC News' Jonathan Beale offers:There'll be a mixture of emotions in government to today's news. There'll be anger, frustration as well as a sense of embarrassment. When Britain signed up to the International Criminal Court it
would not have envisaged itself being the subject of any investigation -
albeit the earliest "preliminary examination" stage.

Britain joins the likes of Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Guinea and Georgia.

KUNA reports
the International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda held a press
conference today explaining "that she cannot go after American forces
who allegedly committed war crimes in Iraq during the same period,
because the US is not party to the Rome Statue." Press TV explains, "In January, her [Bensouda's] office received
documents from the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and
Human Rights (ECCHR) together with the Birmingham-based Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), alleging British involvement in torture. The documents
were based on interviews with over 400 Iraqi prisoners." Jill Reilly and Ian Drury (Daily Mail) expand on that:

It took the first step towards a
formal investigation after studying more than 400 allegations of
beating, sexual assault, mock executions and electric shocks of Iraqi
captives.

The claims are made in a 250-page dossier compiled by Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers.

It raises the prospect of soldiers,
commanders and politicians, including four former Labour defence
secretaries – Geoff Hoon, John Reid, Des Browne and John Hutton – who
are named in the file being put on trial for war crimes.

Chris Ship (ITV News) files
a video report which includes Phil Shiner declaring, "Many of these
cases are deaths in custody so they couldn't be more serious. People
taken into British military facilities very much alive coming out a few
hours or days later very much dead in body bags."

Today, 13 May 2014, the Prosecutor of the
International Criminal Court (“ICC”), Mrs Fatou Bensouda, announced that
she has decided to re-open the preliminary examination of the situation
in Iraq, previously concluded in 2006, following submission of further
information to the Office of the Prosecutor in January 2014 in
accordance with article 15 of the Rome Statute. The new information
received by the Office alleges the responsibility of officials of the
United Kingdom for war crimes involving systematic detainee abuse in
Iraq from 2003 until 2008. Iraq is a not a State Party to the Rome
Statute, however, the ICC has jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed
on the territory of Iraq by nationals of States Parties. The re-opened
preliminary examination will analyse, in particular, alleged crimes
attributed to the armed forces of the United Kingdom deployed in Iraq
between 2003 and 2008.

During the preliminary examination, the Prosecutor
shall consider issues of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests
of justice, in order to decide whether or not the criteria to open an
investigation under article 53(1) of the Rome Statute have been met. No
decision on the opening of an investigation will be taken until a
thorough analysis of all the relevant information is completed by the
Office.

Background

On 9 February 2006, Mr Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the then Prosecutor of the ICC announcedhis
decision not to seek authorisation to initiate an investigation of the
situation in Iraq because based on the information available to the
Prosecutor at the time, the required gravity threshold of the Rome
Statute was not met. In that decision, the Prosecutor indicated that
this conclusion could be reconsidered in the light of new facts or
evidence, in accordance with article 15(6) of the Rome Statute.

On 10 January 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor
received a new communication from the European Center for Constitutional
and Human Rights (“ECCHR”) together with the Public Interest Lawyers
(“PIL”), alleging the responsibility of officials of the United Kingdom
for war crimes involving systematic detainee abuse in Iraq from 2003
until 2008. The United Kingdom deposited its instrument of
ratification of the Rome Statute on 4 October 2001. The ICC has
therefore jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and
genocide committed on the territory of the United Kingdom, or by UK
nationals as of 1 July 2002, representing the date of the entry into
force of the Rome Statute.

Based on an initial assessment of the information
received, the 10 January 2014 communication provides further information
that was not available to the Office in 2006. In particular, the
communication alleges a higher number of cases of ill-treatment of
detainees and provides further details on the factual circumstances and
the geographical and temporal scope of the alleged crimes. The
Prosecutor will therefore conduct a preliminary examination in order to
analyse the seriousness of the information received, in accordance with
the requirements of article 15(2) of the Rome Statute, and ultimately
determine whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an
investigation.

Mike Corder (AP) adds, "War crimes cases at the ICC are not considered admissible at the
Hague-based court if a country can prove it is prosecuting them itself."

It would be great if the issue of War Crimes could aim a little bit
higher than boots on the grounds and zoom in on the master criminals who
plan and carry out illegal wars. Public Interest Lawyers agrees and issued the following statement today:There are considerable reasons to allege that those who bear the
greatest responsibility for the crimes are situated at the highest
levels, including all the way up the chain of command of the UK Army,
and implicating former secretaries of state for defence and ministers
for the armed forces personnel.

Jonathan Owen (Independent) notes, "Some of Britain’s most senior military and
political figures came a step closer to facing a war crimes inquiry
today, as the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced it would make
a “preliminary examination” into claims of “systemic” abuse by British
forces in Iraq."

Nouri's War Crimes continue. Maybe he'll be next at the Hague? As he
continues the shelling of residential neighborhoods in Falluja, NINA reports 1 civilian was killed by this and five more injured.

“The
analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a
jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,”
Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think
there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden
and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against
the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power
struggles and disputes, often sectarian.“Let’s just keep in
mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that,
independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines.
And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough
that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take
place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist
Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to
wade into.”

He went on, “You have a schism between Sunni and
Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or
abetted by states who are in contests for power there. You have failed
states that are just dysfunctional, and various warlords and thugs and
criminals are trying to gain leverage or a foothold so that they can
control resources, populations, territory. . . . And failed states,
conflict, refugees, displacement—all that stuff has an impact on our
long-term security. But how we approach those problems and the resources
that we direct toward those problems is not going to be exactly the
same as how we think about a transnational network of operatives who
want to blow up the World Trade Center. We have to be able to
distinguish between these problems analytically, so that we’re not using
a pliers where we need a hammer, or we’re not using a battalion when
what we should be doing is partnering with the local government to train
their police force more effectively, improve their intelligence
capacities.”

So why did the US government choose sides on Falluja and why is the White House arming Nouri?

Wednesday, April 30th,
Iraqis voted in parliamentary elections. Iraq's Independent High
Electoral Commission has named May 25th as the date the tally of the
votes will be released. All Iraq News notes that the Independent High Electoral Commission stated today they are investigating complaints about the election process.

Ned Parker and Isabel Coles (Reuters) report, "The president of Iraqi Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani, said Iraq had been led
in an authoritarian direction by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and
threatened to end the oil-rich autonomous region's participation in the
federal government." National Iraqi News Agency notes
Barzani met with the US State Dept's Brett McGurk today to discuss "the
political situation and the general election and the formation of the
next Iraqi government." Rudaw speaks
with Kurd Muhsin Abd al-Hamid about the elections. al-Hamid was "head
of the Iraqi Governing Council after the fall of Saddam Hussein in
2003." Exceprt.

Rudaw: How do you see the situation in Iraq after the elections? Will a
coalition be easily formed this time if they choose Nouri al-Maliki as
prime minister?Muhsin Abd al-Hamid: The
situation in Iraq is an incentive to make some changes after the
elections and creating new alliances, because many of the political
groups have realized that the old sectarian alliances have pushed Iraq
backward. The old alliances have harmed Iraq a great deal by
disintegrating the social fabric, causing bloody crimes, causing failure
of economic projects and spreading sectarianism. Now is the chance for
Maliki and the other groups to form a broad-based national alliance.
This will include the entire political process and the constitution as
its source.Rudaw: Is the Kurdish and Sunni concern about a third term for Maliki justified?Muhsin Abd al-Hamid: The Kurds
have been through many issues with Baghdad. They are worried about a
third term for Maliki as the Iraqi PM because they do not believe that
the issues can be solved with Maliki. Therefore, they insist on their
positions.

Saad Jawad (The Conversation) offers his take on the election here. All Iraq News notes
Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq -- and the
new Citizen Coaliton -- declared that the Citizen Coalition is the best
way to end the ongoing crises and to be a path to change.

QUESTION: All right. And then I have one more housekeeping issue before people can go to Ukraine or Syria or whatever.MS. PSAKI: Okay.QUESTION: And that is: Yesterday, there seemed to be some
conflicting statements coming from the Hill and then from you about the
subpoena issue. Has this been resolved in a way that is agreeable to
both sides? Because the committee spokesman seemed to say that you guys
had said, “Well, let’s just reschedule Secretary Kerry for after he
returns from Mexico,” but then your statement suggested that Secretary
Kerry might not be the most appropriate witness at all.MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: So can you enlighten us as to where you are on this?MS. PSAKI: Well, as both of our statements noted, we’ve been
in close touch with the Hill. We’ve noted several times from here that
Secretary Kerry was previously scheduled to be in Mexico on the day he
was subpoenaed to testify, and we have not yet made arrangements for a
hearing date. Obviously, satisfying the request and the needs of the
committee is an utmost priority for us and has been for months, but no,
there hasn’t been a resolution at this time.QUESTION: Okay. Well, so when you said that there – you’re –
you want to work with the committee, but the committee seems to be – at
least this committee in this instance seems to be focused on document
production issues.MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.QUESTION: You suggested yesterday in the statement that the
Secretary’s time would – he’s spending most of his time conducting
important foreign policy business, and that perhaps – or not perhaps,
but there might be – there would be a more appropriate witness. Is that
still your position? And if there would be a more appropriate witness on
document production issues, who might that be?MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have any specifics on that.
Obviously, that’s part of our discussions we’ll continue to have with
the committee. And there’s been some issues around which committee has
oversight over these types of issues, so we simply want to be responsive
to the committee, but the person who testifies and what information we
provide, of course, will be dependent on a range of factors on their
end.QUESTION: So my – okay. So my last one on this: So you will
provide someone, a witness of some – an appropriate – what you would
consider an appropriate witness to the committee to answer their
questions? Is that in response to their --

MS. PSAKI: Certainly, we’re open to doing that. We haven’t made a determination yet in terms of how this will be resolved.

That is a how a spokesperson responds. Not with nonsense about 'rules'
that have nothing to do with the Constitution or any law in the United
States, not by citing what a Republican did a million years ago, not by
being a smart ass, not by being rude. Last week, Marie Harf was
clowning at the podium and it was unworthy behavior for a State Dept
spokesperson. We called her out. Whether you agree with Psaki's
comments or not, that is how a government spokesperson should speak.
She's not ridiculing anyone, she's not taking partisan swipes. Jen
Psaki's comments went to the dignity her position and her department is
supposed to demonstrate.

About Me

I'm a black working mother. I love to laugh and between work and raising kids, I need a good laugh. I'm also a community member of The Common Ills. Shout outs to any Common Ills community members stopping by. Big shout out to C.I. for all the help getting this started. I am not married to Thomas Friedman, credit me with better taste, please. This site is a parody.